Quotes of the day

posted at 10:42 pm on June 25, 2012 by Allahpundit

First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don’t even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.

Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology…

And, when a major piece of legislation gets through, the party’s majority on the Supreme Court prepares to negate it — even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party’s presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago…

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled against the individual mandate, and who knows whether it will. Yet this has not stopped commentators from making sweeping charges about the Court. Many commentators, for instance, are charging that the Roberts Court is “activist.” For some, “activist” is just a label for judges that make decisions they don’t like; one man’s “activist” is another’s constitutional paladin. For others, however, the label “activist” is used to describe a court that is particularly “active” in overturning precedent and invalidating laws, and thereby altering the course of the law. So, for instance, James Fallows claims the Court, and Justices Roberts and Alito in particular, “actively second-guess and re-do existing law” and Jeffrey Toobin charged “the current Court has matched contempt for Congress with a disdain for many of the Court’s own precedents.”

The problem with these characterizations of the court is that if by “judicial activism” one means a willingness to overturn precedents and invalidate federal laws, the Roberts Court is the least activist court of the post-war period. As a recent NYT analysis showed, thus far the Roberts Court has overturned prior precedents and invalidates federal at a significantly lower rate than its predecessors. Further, many of the Court’s most “activist” decisions, so-defined, have moved the law in a more liberal direction (see, e.g., Boumediene, Kennedy v.Louisiana) or were broadly supported First Amendment decisions (e.g. Stevens).

Clinton drew laughter with anecdotes about individual mandates that go back to the founding of the nation. In 1797, when John Adams was president, he signed a bill that required all seamen to be covered by hospitalization insurance through their employer…

Before Mitt Romney as governor signed the individual mandate, Massachusetts had the highest health-care costs in America. Today, that state is seventh, because inflation in health-care costs in that state have been much lower than in the country as a whole. Why? The mandate prevents insurance companies from shifting their promotional costs to consumers, Clinton said.

Yet Supreme Court decisions are the source of much of the liberal legal infrastructure for today’s society. So a weakened court might well mean major losses for liberalism in areas like abortion, birth control, criminal procedure and more.

And if, as seems increasingly possible, the next president is a Republican with a Republican Congress, the new administration will be in a stronger position to make sweeping changes without worrying so much about the courts. Might we revisit efforts to ban partial-birth abortion? Limit the rights of criminal defendants? Pass a new, tougher Patriot Act?

***

In a 2008 profile of Axelrod in the New Republic, Jason Zengerle quoted Ken Snyder, a Democratic consultant and Axelrod protege, on his mentor’s approach. “David felt there almost had to be a permission structure set up for certain white voters to consider a black candidate.” The “permission structure” relied heavily on “third-party authentication“ — endorsements from respected figures or institutions that the targeted voters admired…

What the conservative movement has done — with a big assist from Verrilli — is build a permission structure that would permit the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court to rule against the individual mandate. They had taken a legal campaign initially dismissed as a bitter and quixotic effort based on a radical and discredited reading of the commerce clause and given it sufficient third-party authentication to succeed. If the Supreme Court rules against the mandate, it will no longer be out on a ledge. It will be in lock step with the entire Republican Party, many polls, a number of judges, the impression the public has gotten from the media coverage and the outcome of the oral arguments.

And that’s what has changed from two years ago. When this campaign began, it was unthinkable that the Supreme Court would indulge it, even if some on the Supreme Court were sympathetic to its aims. “There is a less than 1 percent chance that the courts will invalidate the individual mandate,” Kerr said at the time. Today, it’s entirely thinkable that the Supreme Court will indulge it, and that means that the members of the Supreme Court, who care deeply about protecting their institution’s legitimacy, are free to rule in whichever direction they want. We’ll find out what direction that is on Thursday.

***

The post-New Deal consensus about the scope of federal power has broken down amid national, and global, concern over the welfare state’s cost and intrusiveness — a sea change of which the tea party is but one manifestation. Obamacare itself, which has consistently polled badly, fueled that movement.

Much has been made of the fact that Republicans had no objection, constitutional or otherwise, when the individual mandate first surfaced. But that was two decades ago. In today’s changed intellectual, fiscal and political environment, seemingly lapidary constitutional phrases such as “commerce . . . among the several states” can acquire fresh meaning, as they did for the New Deal and at other points in the past.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

The doctors tell her that implementing the mandated electronic records is going to cost each doctor $200,000 (software, training, etc).

txhsmom on June 26, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Nope. There are plenty of software vendors who will give them excellent software for free. Pharma will give them electronic healthcare records software for free. Physicians are notorious for resisting change in IT and not wanting to pay a penny for it. There are plenty of providers who will set them up and guide the transition.

NO money is ever “saved” in a bureaucracy, especially one as huge as Obamacare will create.

Go read Theodore Darlrymple on British NHC. The bureaucrats get all new nice offices, and computers, and such, while the ‘patients’ suffer in filth and neglect.

orbitalair on June 25, 2012 at 11:09 PM

After seeing new computing equipment in all my doctors’ offices during the last year+, I actually had a specialty doc tell me very recently during an intake appt. that “the government bought me all this new computer equipment…”

Obama’s govt. bribed physicians by “giving” them (paid for by the taxpayers, who can’t afford their own “new computing equipment” because they’re paying for it for others) new computing equipment.

But I still haven’t found anyone in a doctor’s office (employees or otherwise) who like “Obamacare.” EVERYONE rolls their eyes at the mention of it and wants it repealed, like I do.

Well, truth be told, according to various and sundry internet rumors he is much closer to being a dic…tastor, than tator… :O

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 11:16 PM

I think there is NO DOUBT that Barack Obama is, indeed, “a dic…tator”. In his own mind, in his frame of reference as to who and what he’s doing and how, he is, indeed, just that. His “understanding” of what he can do and how is, indeed, a dictatorship. Also his goal because that’s his idea of what “President” means.

Oh sure we can, we all agree that you think it’s perfectly acceptable to follow the Marxist ideology “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” and within the framework of that ideology, that we should be deprived of the fruits of our labor so that that Marxist ideology can be implemented.

If you think about it, Pharma is drooling to provide free EHR software to physicians. That way, they can do demographic and means testing to churn patient data for outcomes, trials, etc. EHR has been a win-win for healthcare for years, but for some odd reason, physicians have been holding out.

Oh sure we can, we all agree that you think it’s perfectly acceptable to follow the Marxist ideology “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” and within the framework of that ideology, that we should be deprived of the fruits of our labor so that that Marxist ideology can be implemented.

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 1:50 AM

Healthcare should be available for everyone. Do I believe the healthcare bill should have been smaller, reformed Medicaid, opened up insurance companies to sell throughout the US, yes.
We didn’t get that, but many have coverage now who didn’t before.
It’s not Marxist.

I don’t want to fight, but Romney created the blueprint of O’Care, do you really believe he will overturn it if he gets elected? Will he be able to if the democrats still have the senate?
He has turned somewhat on immigration. Do you trust him, I know you do more than Obama, but he may not have the power to repeal it?

Well we can’t always agree on such weighty matters. Good to see your interested enough to try. Just remember how things started off for for you here. Not everyone is convinced you’re sincere. It will definitely take some work.
; ) Hang in there do your best, keep it civil and sincere and the folks will talk honestly with you. Just remember its a very hot issue. Many folks have been adversely affected. To your earlier point, it is important. Have fun!

Well we can’t always agree on such weighty matters. Good to see your interested enough to try. Just remember how things started off for for you here. Not everyone is convinced you’re sincere. It will definitely take some work.
; ) Hang in there do your best, keep it civil and sincere and the folks will talk honestly with you. Just remember its a very hot issue. Many folks have been adversely affected. To your earlier point, it is important. Have fun!

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 1:59 AM

I know it. I’ve seen how moderates get treated around here, but I was a liberal! Baby steps. I’m not going to be Sean Hannity on day one.

Huh. Maybe it’s a time issue with older doctors nearer retirement, who have oodles of patient records. Say, do you remember something about GM being awarded a no bid contract for EHR software? I wonder what happened with that?

I don’t want to fight, but Romney created the blueprint of O’Care, do you really believe he will overturn it if he gets elected? Will he be able to if the democrats still have the senate?
He has turned somewhat on immigration. Do you trust him, I know you do more than Obama, but he may not have the power to repeal it?

Oh sure we can, we all agree that you think it’s perfectly acceptable to follow the Marxist ideology “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” and within the framework of that ideology, that we should be deprived of the fruits of our labor so that that Marxist ideology can be implemented.

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 1:50 AM

Healthcare should be available for everyone. Do I believe the healthcare bill should have been smaller, reformed Medicaid, opened up insurance companies to sell throughout the US, yes.
We didn’t get that, but many have coverage now who didn’t before.
It’s not Marxist.

BedBug on June 26, 2012 at 1:55 AM

Why should it be available to everyone? Because you are afraid of dying? sorry, that’s gong to happen anyway and all the healthcare on earth isn’t going to prevent it. If you want to make healthcare available to everyone, you need to clarify some definitions first.

When you say, everybody. Who exactly is everybody? Do you exclude individuals who are not US Citizens? The second you do that you expose the futility of your own argument, everyone, means exactly that EVERYONE.

Then you need to clarify exactly what you mean by healthcare.

The question really isn’t whether everyone should have healthcare made available to them, since you have already stated that you are perfectly content to exclude 95% of the world population from the term everyone.

The questions that you should be seeking answers to are, why is healthcare so expensive and how do we make it affordable without resorting to Marxist ideology to do so.

One of those reads where I just scratch my head and say, so. Politization of the court by outside players is I would think the norm. If I am wrong about this please enlighten me. That being said I still down deep in my heart want to believe that the decisions will be made based on the law and a correct reading I’d our founders intent. Maybe I ask to much. These types of big decisions can bring the cynic out in me. Mainly because I am fearful of losing our Nation.

see…you are afraid of the basic unfairness of obama.care. If a young man of twenty something works hard, get’s his hands dirty but doesn’t make much…but has a good life…should he really pay for the in vitro fertilization of two gays down the block? or the sex change? Or the chiropractic?….or pediatric care of his brother who gets paid more but has a wife and infant?

what is ‘fair’ bedbug? the whole insurance market has become an exercise in special interests and cost-shifting.

a young man should have a small premium…but doesn’t because he has to support the special interests (chiropractics) and the PC sex changes.

but that’s fair to a leftist….from those who are able…to those who need.

I know it. I’ve seen how moderates get treated around here, but I was a liberal! Baby steps. I’m not going to be Sean Hannity on day one.

BedBug on June 26, 2012 at 2:03 AM

Lol! Well sounds like you are at least aware that it doesn’t take much for the long knives to come out. Still you’d be wise to listen a fair amount too. We are very lucky to have some really smart folks here.

By “available” you mean “provided by the government” (generally free of charge, since you seem to place no limits on your requirements) and when you say “healthcare” don’t run off into discussions about “health insurance”.

And by “healthcare” do you mean to imply anything and everything that has been discovered should be supplied by the government to anyone and everyone who might need it? If I invent a new medical procedure are you entitled to it? Why? Are you entitled to everything I invent? Do you think the government has the right to force me to provide you with all my inventions, if you might think you “need” any of them?

but that’s fair to a leftist….from those who are able…to those who need.

r keller on June 26, 2012 at 2:13 AM

Fair point. Healthcare should provide for ongoing health, doctors appointments, hospital.
Sex change would need to be something you get if you are paying on a policy that covers that, but not if you are on the good graces of others, like Medicaid.

Well at least I understand the reason for quoting as apposed to posting the entire article. Next question should we take any of this seriously, considering? Makes you wonder why Bill couldn’t sell it when he was Prez ? Well not really.

With all the taxes we pay, yes, I believe US citizens should be afforded healthcare.

BedBug on June 26, 2012 at 2:11 AM

And you think this because for your entire life you have been exposed to a continually increasing level of Marxist indoctrination without your even being aware of it. Having affordable healthcare is not the same as having healthcare made available to everyone. You have literally been indoctrinated to believe “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” is somehow a constitutional right. It’s not, it’s the cornerstone of Marxism.

Affordable healthcare means that the cost of healthcare should be within the reach of any individual requiring medical care. It does not mean, that everyone should be taxed to subsidize the medical care of those who cannot afford it. It means that reasonable medical care should be available at a cost that anyone can afford.

So once again, the question becomes, why is healthcare so expensive that a significant percentage of the population cannot afford it. You cannot solve any problem that you do not first identify.

So once again, the question becomes, why is healthcare so expensive that a significant percentage of the population cannot afford it. You cannot solve any problem that you do not first identify.

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Truth?
I believe, insurance.
Hospitals, doctors bill insurance and they pay exorbitant amounts for seemingly simple care. Now, they have agreements that lower costs, but even still, a cash payer can get better deals if they pay cash for the same care.

why is healthcare so expensive that a significant percentage of the population cannot afford it.
SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Trial lawyers and unions ?

burrata on June 26, 2012 at 2:29 AM

That is certainly two of the reasons, as is for example, the cost of a medical education, the cost of medical device innovation and pharmaceutical development. It’s not a simple answer, and finding a solution isn’t going to be easy.

Huh, interesting take, good read. I do dread saying this, but I think at some point we will need to employ Dem tactics. As Conservatives I know many of us find the idea repulsive. It may be, but we may have to play that way on some, otherwise we run out of clock.

The law, or laws that follow the constitution anyway, have NO ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ direction. I freaking hate it when liberals OR conservatives describe the court as activist just because things don’t go their way. They forget in a heartbeat that it’s the constitution that drives the law, not their damned parties.

So once again, the question becomes, why is healthcare so expensive that a significant percentage of the population cannot afford it. You cannot solve any problem that you do not first identify.

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Truth?
I believe, insurance.
Hospitals, doctors bill insurance and they pay exorbitant amounts for seemingly simple care. Now, they have agreements that lower costs, but even still, a cash payer can get better deals if they pay cash for the same care.

BedBug on June 26, 2012 at 2:30 AM

That is a contributing factor, but it is not by a long shot the whole answer. Therein lays the problem. People want the answers to be simple, so that simple solutions can be applied, the problem is, that the answer isn’t simple and the solution wont be simple either.

Truth?
I believe, insurance.
Hospitals, doctors bill insurance and they pay exorbitant amounts for seemingly simple care. Now, they have agreements that lower costs, but even still, a cash payer can get better deals if they pay cash for the same care.

BedBug on June 26, 2012 at 2:30 AM

That’s ridiculous. First of all, cash payers don’t get a better deal because the “list” prices for health care have to be inflated to make up for what government programs won’t pay for. The difference in those losing payments from the government programs is put into what private insurers have to pay. Meanwhile, cash payers have to be confronted with the intentionally jacked-up price schedules that are put in place to deal with government nonsense. So the cash payer pays less than the list price … Wow. You get 50% off a price that’s been raised 300% to make up for government meddling.

Why do you think prices for college and college textbooks have far outpaced inflation and anything else in creation? Insurance?

As Conservatives I know many of us find the idea repulsive. It may be, but we may have to play that way on some, otherwise we run out of clock.

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 2:35 AM

I disagree, I think that we need to examine the Ronulans playbook, while there is no question that a lot of the Ronulans are bat$hit crazy, the tactics that they have used are not from the democrat playbook.

They sat down and figured out exactly what the rules were and then used the rules to their advantage. We need to do the exact same thing.

it is getting more costly because 1. we’re getting older 2. the technology is miraculous, and expensive 3 drug development is lengthy, risky..and miraculous 4. lawyers/defensive med 5. Insurance has become something other than risk management…and way to convert all medical costs to a monthly payment plan and 6 tragedy of the commons

we need to celebrate the miraculous nature of our medicine. what barry.care will do is tinker with it…tinker, tinker, until the Affordable Care Act recapitulates Affordable Housing

I find you phoney attempt at expressing parity between leftists and conservatives to be ridiculous. Conservatives want fidelity ot the Constitution. Leftists want the COnstitution ignored. There is no parity, there, and I find the attempt to find some saying that “both sides are equally bad” to be simple-minded and intellectually offensive.

Hospitals, doctors bill insurance and they pay exorbitant amounts for seemingly simple care. Now, they have agreements that lower costs, but even still, a cash payer can get better deals if they pay cash for the same care.

BedBug on June 26, 2012 at 2:30 AM

It’s called padding the bill. Michigan Blue Cross/Blue Shield gets billed $100 for something, they know it’s only worth, or costs an actual $40, so they pay 75% of what was asked for. It’s still too much,

Meanwhile that same hospital is making interns do 72 hour shifts, putting YOU in danger, and the intern gets paid next to nothing, if anything at all. Free work, covered by high malpractice insurance for when the old biddy decides to sue for a million bucks because her sheets weren’t crisp enough.

Insurance reform. Hospital reform and privatization. TORTE REFORM. Liberals hate that last one, because the liberal politicians live amongst the pocket lint of the trial lawyers to pull 33% to 50% of the claims they collect on.

Pharma is a huge scam, twisted in knots between patents, research, graft, the FDA and MORE graft, then more trial lawyers because you need a class action lawsuit for when your eyes explode and your liver melts from taking that boner inducing pill.

The worst of it all is, it’s this way because people put up with it for so long.

Yup, because you cannot force innovation or invention nor can you predict with 100 percent accuracy when tragedy will strike. Economies are dynamic fluid systems, they are not static. They respond to a multitude of seeming unrelated events.

btw, let’s identify what barry.care is all about. HMOs (they’ve changed the name). HMOs were the 90s answer, very very unpopular. Capitation rates made people feel that they were getting screwed.

but that’s the plan. Everyone goes to their primary care doc (think long lines) and s/he decides where to go next…well, actually, you’ll talk to a PA first and s/he’ll decide if you get to talk to the doc..and then s/he’ll decide what next

That, too. The US health care market pays for the world’s R+D. Drugs and procedures only get worked on that have the US market as the main target, since there’s no money to be made anywhere else. After we pay for it the rest of the world gets to just draft off of us (what does Mexico or Luxemburg invent or pioneer in medicine?). We like to pay for that because we want the best available to us. But, if private insurance pays for something people like BedBug immediately think that everyone on government insurance (and just everyone, basically) is entitled to it, too. They have no concept of drafting and think that we can draft off the medical advancements of others .. while all the others are drafting off of us.

And that’s aside from the stagnating force of all centralization schemes.

They sat down and figured out exactly what the rules were and then used the rules to their advantage. We need to do the exact same thing.

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 2:40 AM

Agree with you there, I have know issue with fighting, how is it that they, Queens rules? Dems play past the rules. It gives them brass knuckles to use. We may have to go with brass at some point. Or is it Kings rules? What is that old saying. Anyone?

Wolfmoon, I didn’t mean to snap at you but I really can’t stand the arguments that left and right are mirror images of each other. They aren’t. The left depends on such arguments to steal some fake legitimacy for themselves, but there is no parity between those who would build and maintain and those who would destroy. They are not mirror images of each other. But destroyers would love to be called “mirror-builders” rather than the destroyers they are.

I find you phoney attempt at expressing parity between leftists and conservatives to be ridiculous. Conservatives want fidelity ot the Constitution. Leftists want the COnstitution ignored. There is no parity, there, and I find the attempt to find some saying that “both sides are equally bad” to be simple-minded and intellectually offensive.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 26, 2012 at 2:45 AM

Real conservatives want constitutional law. How many REAL conservatives to we have in office now? They aren’t conservatives. Besides, I meant parties. There’s no conservative party, only repubs and dimbulb dems who definitely don’t want anything to do with that constitution thingy.

The parties are too much alike because there aren’t many real conservatives left. Republicans are afraid of the lib socialist scum and break their backs to be moderate…or a McCain look-alike. I don’t know how to fix this crappy situation short of a full on revolution. Again.

yeah, i know. slacker countries sucking us dry…and yes, sadly, that includes Canada

I don’t mind it (I’m happy to pay more for the best) but I just want it acknowledged, since much of the left’s push is for us to become just like those that benefit from us, as if some ghost will exist in the future that we can draft off of.

I don’t think we’ve ever had dumber people in government. There are few with brains, but most of them are just brain-dead morons who have no business being in charge of anything important. I wouldn’t let Barky tutor a 7th grader for a math test. Or a history test. Or anything that I can think of.

They sat down and figured out exactly what the rules were and then used the rules to their advantage. We need to do the exact same thing.

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 2:40 AM

Agree with you there, I have know issue with fighting, how is it that they, Queens rules? Dems play past the rules. It gives them brass knuckles to use. We may have to go with brass at some point. Or is it Kings rules? What is that old saying. Anyone?

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 2:49 AM

The Dems like to try to play past the rules and usually when they do manage to do so, it’s because somebody didn’t know the rules to call them on it. That seems to be where the Ronulans excelled, when every anyone tried to slip a fast one, the Ronulans whipped out the rule book and said…. WHOA there… You can’t do that. Or, they whipped out the rule book and said… Yo… wait a second, here is what we are going to do, and then they did it.

The Ronulans took over a significant number of delegate seats and put their people in place by knowing exactly what the rules for delegate nomination were. They went down into the trenches and engaged in old fashioned hand to hand political combat.

Those of us who are TEA Party supporters need to follow their example. There are 10 to 100 times as many of us TEA Party folks are their are Ronulans. We actually do have the number that if we followed the Ronulan example, we could take over the GOP from the ground up.

I’m not suggesting that the TEA Party is screwing up, only that the dedication to their cause, and the tactics they developed have far exceed the Ronulans proportional numbers. We who support the TEA Party need to replicate the Ronulans disproportionate influence.

…and what it seems to be is that “BedBug” expects some sort of “free” and “free access” “healthcare” for anyone at any time for any reason. That there’ll be physicians with cures and treatments at the ready for the public’s drive-through demands for such and there’ll be no or little amount on any check at the exit, or if an amount is on that check, it’ll be pocket change: “free”…

Physicians used to treat anyone who made an appointment and appeared polite and interested in doing what the doctor advised they do, including pay the doctor something for his/her time and efforts on exit, or promise to do so and then keep that promise later.

Physicians then had to deal with malpractice insurance and increased regulations about it and about what represented what (what was malpractice, who paid for “it” and why). Physicians over time only placed increased restrictions on their availability to just about anyone because they had to make increasingly selective decisions about who to treat and who to not treat because of the increasing liabilities for treating.

Which lead in complimentary parallel to people asking for appointments/treatments to be insured themselves: because the docs were carrying pronounced financial liabilities themselves for their choices in patients.

There’s no free lunch. There’s no free “healthcare.” Someone always pays for someone else and private insurance premiums are no laughing matter for those who have them (their high costs and deductibles reflect the risks involved for the companies issuing those policies).

“BedBug” thinks it’s “fair” that everyone gets “healthcare.” The reality is, life isn’t fair, you get what you pay for and everyone has to carry his or her own weight. Life is hard, take care of yourself.

And “being insured” does not mean you’re going to receive any or best/better medical care. “Healthcare” is not medical care.

Nope. There are plenty of software vendors who will give them excellent software for free. Pharma will give them electronic healthcare records software for free. Physicians are notorious for resisting change in IT and not wanting to pay a penny for it. There are plenty of providers who will set them up and guide the transition.

John the Libertarian on June 26, 2012 at 1:39 AM

Late to the thread, but as for the electronic records…it has already happened. My hospital, as well as other hospitals throughout the coutry have already gone to the EPIC system…Big Brother is here, and watching you..and the doctors hate it…

I don’t think we’ve ever had dumber people in government. There are few with brains, but most of them are just brain-dead morons who have no business being in charge of anything important. I wouldn’t let Barky tutor a 7th grader for a math test. Or a history test. Or anything that I can think of.

We used to laugh such idiots out of the public sphere.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 26, 2012 at 3:01 AM

We suffer this glut of stupidity because our elections have become popularity contests, and they have become popularity contests, because popularity contests sell advertising time.

Medicaid exists to provide BASIC CARE for the very poor, the indigent, those incapable of paying their own way for a variety of reasons.

It’s become, instead, used as a way of life for some people who “can’t, won’t”. They lapse into Medicaid out of a default setting.

I knew a woman once (she was a legal immigrant from Russia and had lived in the U.S. for years, legally, but worked at a very low-paying job, a waitress most of her mid-adult life) who had Multiple Sclerosis. SHE was enrolled in Medicaid and received what’s called “SSI” (state welfare program) because she was indigent, had paid little to no taxes in her working years and was very ill, obviously.

She received a housekeeper in a subsidized apartment, basic medical care when/as needed (broken bones set when she continued to fall in her apartment, some basic treatments to maintain her while she had MS), and she ended up in a state nursing home before she passed away, receiving very basic treatment such as a bed, food, daily cleaning, very, very basic stuff.

THAT level of “care” is MORE THAN what the average person can anticipate under “OCare.”

“BedBug” thinks it’s “fair” that everyone gets “healthcare.” The reality is, life isn’t fair, you get what you pay for and everyone has to carry his or her own weight. Life is hard, take care of yourself.

And “being insured” does not mean you’re going to receive any or best/better medical care. “Healthcare” is not medical care.

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 3:07 AM

Lourdes, BedBug can only be judged by his words and deeds. I do think he is trying to make an honest effort. I am still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We need to try and have some converts when we can. BedBug has been very honest about most everything. He has said he was surrounded by the left much all of his life. Sometimes folks do change. My vote is work on it with him where we can.

Our fellow commenter novaculus dropped that on me in the wee hours the other evening. Actually he dropped this one, which I like even more. Of course I am bias towards Appalachian tunes. I also enjoy the Classics so YoYo ma works for me.

Part of it, yeah. Another huge part of the cost though is that doctors and insurance agencies have worked hard to hide costs from those needing services which lead to increased prices because *shock* when the consumer somehow thinks they aren’t footing the bill they don’t try to price shop- not that they could if they wanted to as the healthcare industry has done a pretty good job of making that impossible.

Look at lasic eye surgery for example- insurance doesn’t cover it (at least most) and as a result places doing it actually have to compete for their customers which leads to falling prices and aggressive attempts to court customers by price.

Some of these increases in the cost of healthcare the insurance companies and doctors have brought about themselves by removing the customer from taking price into account. None of which will be solved under a top down govt rule- and the proof of that is to just look at Medicare or Medicade and look for opinions on just how well most think those programs are running. You will see some positives and a whole bunch of nightmare stories going from the people I’ve talked with.

To fix it the whole industry needs to be dragged more into the free market like laser eye surgery, not into the nebulous swamp of government control where the system will just fester and get worse as the government will most definitively be deciding on what gets charged and approved- and don’t forget the guy currently in charge has talked about aspirin versus surgery.